endgame for Bond.

[AD]

Well I was quite shocked when I heard that Pierce Brosnan had quit the James Bond franchise.

Not only that, I was watching the ITV news channel this morning, and the bottom they had a news ticker and it said "Orlando Bloom to play Young James Bond"

But it went too quick for me to read it, I nearly spit out my coffee.  "Orlando Bloom?  Orlando *f-ing* Bloom?  As James Bond?  As a Young James Bond?  Like that crappy James Bond Jnr cartoon? Who came up with that idea?"  I thought to myself.

Only to realise, I actually said that in an empty room, with nobody listening.

Ah well, for me, Bond is over.

"...Rest in peace...Meeeester Bond..."

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Pierce has been iffy about being Bond for a while now - I think he was oooing and ahhing about The World Is Not Enough (rightly so). I do feel that the franchise has greatly devalued of late though - I still haven't seen Die Another Day but Tomorrow Never Dies and TWISNE were hardly Bond at his best (Golden Eye was great).

Which is a shame because I thought Brosnan was one of the better Bond's (pretty close to Sean Connery, with Moore a campy 3rd). I wouldn't bet on Bloom being the new Bond definitely... although, it is entirely likely.

Still 20 films,that's more than most franchise get before selling out.

[Susan]

That may officially drive the stake through the bond franchise.
Of course they're trying to attract the younger audience so they can keep the money machine alive, it may work.  I never liked brosnon. I hated the guy even in Remington Steele. He was the cookie cutout image of Bond, but for me...I've always been a die hard connery fan

[daveblackeye15]

 Orlando Bloom I now hate you with a passion...
Sean Connery was #1, Timothy Dalton is #2, Pierce Bronsmon is #3, the guy that played Bond once is #4 (way to show him respect ,dave.) And Roger Moore is #5 (I don't like that guy quite a bit) I will admit I'd rather have Roger Moore as the Bond instead of Orlando Bloom as a younger Bond.

[Ash]

Susan wrote:

I never liked brosnon. I hated the guy even in Remington Steele. He was
> the cookie cutout image of Bond, but for me...I've always been
> a die hard connery fan

I must respectfully disagree.

I personally feel that Brosnan is the total embodiment of James Bond.
He has the look, the talk, the walk and everything else that IS James Bond.
He is smooth & slick like Bond should be and never for a second have I doubted that Brosnan is an actor and not James.

He even bests Connery in my opinion.
While you are gasping at that statement in disbelief; I know there are others out there that will agree with me.

I never cared for Connery for some reason....probably because he was before my time.
Even if he wasn't, I would still think that he lacks something that I just cannot seem to put my finger on.
He's Ok...definitely better than Roger Moore, but if I were forced to choose, my money would be on Brosnan anyday of the week.

Either way, it's no use debating...this argument could go on for a thousand more threads and it will always be divided.

Brosnan has that something extra that makes him the TOTAL BOND in my opinion.



Post Edited (07-29-04 01:59)

[raj]

Connery did have the good fortune of going first, so he got to set the standard.  Plus movies in general and Bond in particular in those days actually had things like plots.  With Connery the gadgets et al.  were a part of the story, with Moore the gadgets and "let's top the last movie's stunts" became the movie.  And now it just seems like more of that, along with New! Improved! 50% more explosions!

Can't we have a Bond movie revolving around a plot?

[dean]

I agree with Raj, which is why I was excited that Tarantino announced he wanted to adapt Casino Royale, which would be soo awesome.  I doubt that happening though...


Connery and Brosnan are the best bond.  Connery is the most accurate [to the book that is] yet brosnan [for me anyway] is the best fitting bond in the filmic world to appeal to the widest audience.

Also I've heard that Hugh Jackman and Heath Ledger were being suggested as possible Bonds, but I think that's just the aussie media propaganda machine running overtime, yet again, to try to get us to think we are more well known than we are...

btw both choices would be crap.

The problem with the bond franchise is it is a franchise, it's all about the money, not the content.  Damn bastards...

[Yaddo42]

I've held out hope that Clive Owen would get the role ever since "Croupier", but since he's not a big name in the US, and "King Arthur" didn't do well, and wasn't very good from what I've read, his chances are probably pretty slim.

Ioan Gruffudd - from the Horatio Hornblower TV movies, also in "King Arthur" (whoops!), and the future Reed Richards in the upcoming "Fanstatic Four" film looks like - would be a possibility if they want to go younger. I've said a couple of times I thought he might make a good Bond when he got older.

But Orlando Bloom! Please tell me that's a mistake or just studio BS. He could almost play a Bond babe he's so "cute" and unmasculine. Made to play elves and wimpy heroes in pirate movies and be upstaged by Johnny Depp. Hell he could play "Orlando" if anyone ever makes another film version of the Virginia Woolf story. Jeez!

[onionhead]

How about Bruce Campbell as Bond--"that's Bond, James Bond; now gimme some sugar, baby"--with Sam Raimi at the helm.
Or perhaps Johnny Depp directed by Tim Burton:  what a surreal take that would be . . . ..

[AlexB]

What's wrong with Hugh Jackman? He'd make a pretty good Bond if you ask me.

[BoyScoutKevin]

'The guy that played Bond once . . . " George Lazenby, who played Bond in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," and  who  was Australian, I believe.

[AndyC]

Not sure why everybody is so down on Moore. I liked him. Connery was the best, but Moore had a style about him, and his movies were fun. The Moore movies really went over the top with grand villains, wild weapons, and large-scale plans for world domination. Yet they didn't take themselves too seriously. They were very tongue-in-cheek.

Not that Connery's movies didn't have these qualities, but they hit their peak in the Moore years.

Lazenby was in a good movie, but really brought nothing to it.

Dalton didn't seem like much more than a pretty boy.

Brosnan, I'll admit, was an excellent Bond. Unfortunately, the movies started turning into generic big-budget action thrillers, with some very uninteresting henchmen and plots that wouldn't stray far enough from the real world. Goldeneye was great, and Die Another Day attempted to recapture the magic (admittedly while breaking the rule that Bond is never sucessfully detained), but the two in between were crap.

Can't say who should take over the role. As long as it goes to a decent actor, and not some young, fresh faced flavour of the month, I'll be happy.

[Yaddo42]

But Hugh Jackman seems to be in nearly every mainstream action/superhero/adventure/fantasy movie, lately anyway. He's a good actor, but he's kind of overexposed. He's been so many action heroes of late that it wouldn't seem special to have him be Bond as well. Plus the last time they went with an Australian look what happened. I'm not a purist, but I want the actor playing Bond to be from the British Isles at least (I'm including Ireland, but Brosnan was raised in the UK also during part of his childhood).

Plus I have a hard time with the guy who plays the rough and tumble, almost ferral  Wolverine also playing the suave and sophisticated Bond in possibly competing franchises.

[daveblackeye15]

Oh yeah, thanks. I was in a lazy mood when I wrote that.

[AndyC]

Agreed, Bond should be British (or Scottish or Irish). I think he also needs to be 40 years old or thereabouts - mature. A lot of the big studios these days fail to recognize that some roles simply require a man, not a young pretty boy like we often see. Bond is seasoned, experienced, and has a reputation. He's also a ladies' man. Not a hunk, but a guy with charm and charisma. He doesn't get women in the sack, he seduces them. A young actor is not going to pull it off believably without major changes to the character, and then it just wouldn't be Bond.

Some of the other cast changes in the franchise have been great. I didn't initially like Judi Dench as M, mainly because they wrote her as such a b***h in Goldeneye. In subsequent movies, I've come to really like her in the part. She's still formidable, but likeable too.

And I don't think there could have been a better choice than John Cleese to replace Desmond Llewellyn as Q.

I just hope the same care goes into choosing the next Bond.